COAL EXPLORATION AND 

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF ARMENIA

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 99-567

BRENDA S. PIERCE

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 956 NATIONAL CENTER, RESTON, VA 201 92

THIS REPORT IS PRELIMINARY AND MAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR CONFORMITY WITH U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND STRATK3RAPH1C NOMENCLATURE. ANY USE OF TRADE, PRODUCT, OR FIRM NAMES IS FOR 

DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
OVERVIEW

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) signed a Participating Agency Service 

Agreement (PASA) with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), PASA 

Number CN-002-P-ID-3097-00, under the Energy Efficiency and Market Reform 

Project. The purpose of the PASA is to support the implementation, by the U.S. 

Geological Survey, of assistance and training activities in connection with petroleum, 

natural gas, and coal resources in the Newly Independent States (NIS) of the Former 

Soviet Union. These activities are aimed toward the establishment of environmental 

and scientific knowledge bases upon which NIS governments can make informed 

decisions regarding the establishment of resource development policies.

Annex 5 of the PASA is the Armenian Coal Exploration and Resource 

Assessment Program. This activity focused on training and providing equipment, 

facilities, and abilities necessary to conduct an extensive coal resource assessment, 

exploration, and development program. The Program, conducted from 1995 to 1999, 

consisted of geologic field work and mapping, exploration drilling, coal quality 

laboratory activities, geophysical logging activities, map production, database creation, 

resource assessment, and comprehensive training on all aspects of the program.

The Armenian Coal Exploration and Resource Assessment Program was a 

cooperative program between the USGS and Armenian counterparts, mainly the 

Republic of Armenia (RA) Ministry of Environment. A Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) and its amendments between USAID and the Ministry of Environment lays out

1
the guidelines of the program and the responsibilities of both sides. USGS was not a 

signatory to this MOU, but was the implementing party, as stated in the MOU, and so 

acted on the behalf of USAID.

For the purposes of this report, the Coal Exploration and Resource Assessment 

Program can be organized into the following categories:

I Training

II Computerization of the Ministry's Geology Department, including 

building of databases and digitizing of ail maps

III Creation of a coal quality laboratory

IV Creation of a geophysical logging station

V Exploration Drilling, including coalbed methane 

Vi Production of a Satellite Image Map of Armenia

VII Research concerning the major coal fields of Armenia, including

(a) assembly, synthesization, and interpretation of all data (stratigraphic, 

coal quality, and resource estimates) in the archival reports on each 

Armenian coal field, and

(b) new, detailed geologic mapping of each major coal field

VIII Detailed coal exploration in Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field

IX Economic assessment of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field

X Other activities

XI Uses for Armenia's coal resources 

XM Recommendations for further work

MAJOR PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

Training of 12 USGS counterpart Armenian Ministry geologists, geophysicists, 

geochemists, resource analysts in the United States. USGS created and 

provided a tailor-made coal geology course for one and a half months in the U.S. 

for these Ministry employees. They visited and received instruction at USGS 

offices in Virginia and Colorado and at underground and surface mining 

operations, large and small mining companies, exploratory drilling sites, 

reclamation sites, power plants, and coal quality laboratories in Virginia, West 

Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, and Utah. USGS also drilled a 

borehole specifically for this course to illustrate ail aspects of exploratory drilling, 

geophysical logging, and coal core desorption for coalbed gas (methane).
Procurement, shipment, and installation of equipment and instalments for all 

aspects of this project, including drilling equipment, geochemical laboratory 

instruments and equipment, geophysical logging probes, coalbed methane 

testing equipment, computers, office computers, printers, plotter, field and office 

supplies, and more.

Major repair of geochemical laboratory, including plumbing, electricity, floors, 

walls, ceilings, light fixtures, windows, ventilation, furniture, and security 

features.

Installation of instrumentation and equipment for a full coal quality laboratory in 

Armenia.

Training of geochemists on all aspects of coal quality analysis and coal 

preparation.

Visitation and inspection of the laboratory and chemists' analytical techniques by 

a laboratory inspector from an American coal testing laboratory.

Establishment of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control program within the coal 

quality laboratory and enrollment of the laboratory in an international round robin 

program.

Repair of geophysical logging truck and installation of a completely 

computerized geophysical logging operation to create a mobile, geophysical 

logging station.

Training of geophysicist on ail aspects of core borehole geophysical logging.

Complete repair of Ministry drill rig and water truck shells to fully functional 

equipment. Repaired and modified a Russian core drilling rig to be able to do 

both coring and rotary drilling.

Training of geophysicist on all aspects of coalbed methane coal core desorption 

- theory, procedure, instrumentation, and interpretation.

Establishment of a core and cuttings warehouse facility at one of the Ministry 

sites in order to archive and inventory coal and rock samples from any drilling 

project in the country.

Development of a computer facility, including hardware and software for 

database creation, resource calculation and analysis, data manipulation, 

digitizing and production of maps, desk top publishing, and graphics.
Creation of stratigraphic databases of all major coal regions of Armenia - 

Antaramut, Shamut, Jajur, Ijevan, Nor Arevik, and Jermanis.

Creation of coal quality databases of all major coal, carbonaceous shale, peat, 

and oil shale regions in Armenia.

Creation and production of Satellite Image Map of Armenia, at two scales - 

1:250,000 and 1:100,000. Distribution of this map to all major research 

institutions in Armenia, including the RA Archival Fund. Enough copies of the 

1:250,000 scale map were provided to the RA Ministry of Education by the 

USGS to give every school in Armenia a satellite image of Armenia.

Detailed geologic field work in all major coal regions of Armenia, with the 

production of new geologic maps and cross sections.

Detailed geologic field work and exploration drilling in the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coal field of north-central Armenia.

Coal was found in previously unknown areas and this 

coal field, as a direct result of this project, was 

expanded from a known 1km2 area to approximately a 20 

km2 area.

Produced a detailed geologic map, 1:10,000 scale, of the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coal field.

New resource calculations of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field.

Economic and mining pre-feasibility study of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

coal field.

The following discussion synopsizes the current state of knowledge of the coal 

resources in Armenia, as gathered, collated, and synthesized by this Project. It is 

stressed that this is only an overview. For more details of each coal deposit, a full 

discussion of the reporting categories (C^ C2, etc.) and other information please see 

the appropriate publications referenced throughout this report. All tonnage is in metric
tonnes. A map of all the coal deposit locations is found in figure 1.

SHAMUT COAL DEPOSIT located in north-central Armenia

Officially Reported Resources 3,623,000 tonnes of C2 category coal 

by the Government of Armenia: 5,000,000 tonnes of P category coal

Kacharava(1953):

Aloyan and Hakopian (1995):

Computerized recalculation:

Prognosis:

Recommendation:

3,623,000 tonnes C, + C2 

6,671,612 tonnes C, + C2

4,055,088 tonnes C, + C2 

14,646,822 tonnes C, + C pi

Detailed field work and mapping by USGS 

indicates that much more coal than this 

probably exists in the Shamut coal field. Field 

work indicates that the coal-bearing sediments 

have a wider occurrence than is currently 

reported and that the coal field extends further 

to the northwest than any previous studies 

considered.

Exploration drilling is definitely needed in the 

Shamut coal field. Deeper drill holes in the 

Shamut area proper are needed to obtain 

information about the entire coal-bearing 

section and exploratory boreholes in a larger 

regional area are warranted, based upon field 

results. The extent of the Shamut coal field is 

unknown and can be obtained only with 

exploratory drilling and geophysical logging.

JAJUR COAL DEPOSIT located in northwestern Armenia

Officially Approved Resource, 

by the State Committee

on Reserves: 

(remaining after mining)

64,700 tonnes A+B, 151,200 m tonnes C^ 

10,400 tonnes C2 (economical), and 

128,900 tonnes C2 (non-economical) 

Total = 355,200 tonnes 

[This is the only coal deposit in Armenia with
officially approved resources by the State 

Committee on Reserves]

Tarayan(1942): 265,900 tonnes A+B+CVCa coal beds No. 2 

and 6 - "In Balance" Resources

128,900 tonnes coal beds No. 3, 4, and 5 - 

"Out of Balance" Resources

Vardanian and Elbakian (1996): 392,734 tonnes C-,+C2 coal beds No. 2 and

6 - "In Balance" Resources 

119,340 tonnes C^+C2 coal beds No. 3, 4, 5 

"Out of Balance" Resources

Computerized recalculation:

Prognosis:

Recommendation:

IJEVAN COAL DEPOSIT

483,538 tonnes. No distinction made between 

"In Balance" and "Out of Balance," because 

beds 3, 4, and 5 are thick enough to strip mine 

and as good or better in quality than beds 2 

and 6.

Based upon detailed field work by USGS and 

geologic mapping of the Shirak region, these 

resource numbers may represent the extent of 

the Jajur coal resources. While there are 

related coal and carbonaceous shale deposits 

in the Shirak region - Bandivan, Maissian, 

Sariar - the coal beds are not laterally 

continuous across the area.

Localized drilling is needed to restart and 

expand the small mining operation (the site of 

a USAID-funded strip mine), if continued 

mining is desired. The Jajur deposit may be 

an important local resource, especially for use 

in Gyumri. However, larger scale regional 

exploration drilling is probably not warranted.

located in northeastern Armenia

Officially Reported Resources: 9,780,000 tonnes C2 and 88,000,000 tonnes P

Chubarian and others (1983): 9,778,922 tonnes C2 and 88,293,750 tonnes P2

Computerized recalculation: Pending (This coal deposit is very difficult to
assess because of the steep dip of the coalbearing strata and the sampling technique of 

previous geologists (often on a mm by mm 

scale) creating an abundance of data),

Prognosis: Only preliminary field work was carried out by

the USGS on the Ijevan coal field because the 

Scientific Technical Council of the Ministn/s 

Geology Department determined that there 

were no geological, technological, nor 

economic reasons to conduct extensive work 

nor exploratory drilling on this deposit. We 

agree that Ijevan contains a great deal of coal 

and think that more work needs to be 

conducted. Coal may very well occur outside 

the central area of Ijevan, where most of the 

past work has been conducted.

Recommendation: Exploration drilling is needed to understand

this structurally complex coal deposit. The 

exact nature of the geologic structure 

containing the coal deposit is under debate, 

and more work is needed to determine the 

extent and resources of the coal in this 

deposit.

NOR AREVIK COAL DEPOSIT located in southern Armenia

Officially Reported Resources 22,500 tonnes C2 coal 

by the Armenian Government: 228,200 tonnes C^ combustible shale

127,400 tonnes C2 combustible shale

Tarayan (1 942): 22,285 tonnes C,+C2 coal

228,205 tonnes C, combustible shale 

270,642 tonnes C2 combustible shale

Drobotova and Saponjian (1996): 2,225,198 tonnes C^+C2 combustible shale

65,631 ,400 tonnes P, combustible shale

Recalculation: A recalculation of the resources was not

performed, for several reasons. Correlation of 

data between reports was difficult for reasons 

detailed in the Nor Arevik report (Pierce and
Recommendation:

others, in review), but the main reason is that 

the coal field area is so small, that additional 

data are probably not needed to calculate the 

resource of the Nor Arevik coal field. The 

1942 calculation is probably a very good 

representation of the resources at Nor Arevik.

Detailed field work and geologic mapping by 

USGS indicate that the Nor Arevik coal field is 

sufficiently understood. Because net coal 

thickness is not great and the areal extent of 

the coal probably does not extend much 

beyond that already studied, the Nor Arevik 

coal deposit can probably be considered a 

local resource. No further exploration is 

recommended.

JERMANIS COAL DEPOSIT located in south central Armenia

Officially Reported Resource

by the Armenian Government: 2,251,000 tonnes

Nazarian(1941): 

Atabekian and others (1996): 

Recalculation:

Recommendation:

2,251,000 tonnes 

393,414 tonnes

A recalculation of the Jermanis resource was 

not performed. The main reason for this is 

because most of the boreholes drilled and 

reported in the archival reports did not contain 

coal. The only coal in the database occurs in 

adits or trenches and there are not enough 

data to complete a good re-calculation. The 

latest calculation, in 1996, is probably a good 

representation of the Jermanis resource.

Detailed field work and geologic mapping by 

USGS indicate that the Jermanis coal field is 

not very laterally extensive and occurs in a 

fairly structurally complex area. In addition, 

net coal thickness is not great. The Jermanis 

coal field can be considered a local resource. 

No further exploration is recommended.
ANTARAMUT COAL DEPOSIT located in north central Armenia

Officially Reported Resource: No resources were ever calculated on the 

Antaramut coal deposit, and thus, no 

resources are reported.

Talanian and Bogdanova (1956): Although work was carried out by all of these

Georgadze(1956): 

Keshabian and others (1997):

Recalculation:

Prognosis:

workers, each report concluded that the 

Antaramut deposit was very small in lateral 

extent and recommended that no more work 

should be made on this deposit and the coal 

has no industrial value.

Each of the three reports above contained 

exploratory data. We built a database and 

recalculated resources, even though the 

original reports did not contain them. Results: 

168,949 tonnes for an area of approximately 

103,600m2.

The Antaramut coal field contains much more 

coal than thought by any previous worker. 

Through detailed field work and exploration 

drilling in the Coal Exploration Program, the 

USGS expanded the known or expected coal 

resource from an area of less than 1 km2 to an 

area of approximately 20 km2 . Results are 

discussed in detail later in this report, but the 

results are as follows:

Total Area = 16,412,148 m2 

Total Resource = 31,597,040 metric tonnes of C2 or Indicated coal

Smaller Area (described later in report) = 165,305 m2

Resource of Upper Bed = 3, 605,707 metric tonnes of C-, or Demonstrated coal

Resource of Lower Bed = 1,026,870 metric tonnes of C-j or Demonstrated coal

Total Resource of Smaller Area = 5,518,439 metric tonnes of C1 or Demonstrated coal

Recommendation: USGS conducted exploration drilling on a large 

portion of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

coal field, but the resource assessment could 

become a reserve assessment by drilling a few 

more boreholes. In addition, USGS conducted
an Economic Analysis Prefeasibility Study. 

This prefeasibility study should become a 

feasibility study, with more drilling, trenching, 

surveying, and other necessary work.

10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None of this work would have been possible without the extraordinary USGS 

staff in Armenia: geologists Artur Martirosyan and Samvel Harutunian, computer 

specialist Gourgen Malkhasian, interpreter-translators Irina Astvatsatouriants and 

Gaggik Papian, translators Zamfira Aslanian and Nora Mirzoyan, drivers and logistical 

support Movses Kazarian and David Adamian, and the drill crew Ashot Balian, Souren 

Arekelian, and Eddik Gevorkian.

Sincere appreciation is expressed to the following Ministry of Environment 

employees: Hamlet Amazaspian, Hrachik Chubarian, Grigor Grigorian, Grigory 

Harutunian, Ruben Kazarian, Edward Kharazian, Gohar Kochinian, Arshak Nalbandian, 

Susanna Sarkissian, Mary Veguni; and to Mihran Aslanian of the Academy of Sciences 

and American University of Armenia.

This program also benefitted from the input and support of many USGS 

employees: Charles Barker, Michael Brownfield, Art Clark, Todd Dallegge, Edward 

Johnson, Richard Hodges, Mark Kirschbaum, Florian Maldonado, Fred Paillet, Mark 

Pawlewicz, Stephen Roberts, Carol Skeen, Gary Stricker, Susan Tewalt, Roger 

Thomas, Peter Warwick.

Former Minister Souren Avetissian, of the Ministry of Environment, took an 

active interest in the project and helped solve many difficult problems encountered 

during the initial implementation of this project.

Simone Papian, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Environment, has been

11
completely supportive of this project since its inception in 1994 and heartfelt 

appreciation is expressed to him for all of his help and interest over the years.

Minister Gevork Vardanian, Ministry of Environment, has also lent his support 

and understanding to the project, and sincere appreciation is expressed to him.

12
I. TRAINING

A major portion of the Coal Exploration and Resource Assessment Project 

consisted of training. Training took many shapes and forms throughout the project - 

some formal and some informal, and included classroom instruction, instrument-specific 

training, training on techniques, approaches, ways of thinking, etc. Some of the 

training was concrete, such as how to build a database, and some intangible, such as 

introducing new ways of doing things.

The first training within the project occurred in the United States and consisted of 

a one and a half month specialized Coal Geology Course, specifically designed for 12 

Armenian Ministry counterparts. This training included classroom instruction at USGS 

headquarters in Reston, Virginia and at USGS Central Regional Office in Denver, 

Colorado. AH aspects of coal exploration and resource assessment were covered by 

USGS specialists. In addition, field site visits to an underground coal mine, several 

surface mines, exploration drilling sites, reclaimed surface mines, coal-fired power 

plants, cleaning plants, and coal quality testing laboratories were arranged. At all of 

these locations, the group met with and talked to individuals in the coal business and 

toured the premises or mine. These locations were in the major coal-producing or 

-using areas of the U.S. including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (unfortunately we got snowed out of the Wyoming 

portion of the trip). In addition to these site visits, the USGS set up one of our own drill 

rigs in Utah in an area known to contain coal and gave a training demonstration of coal 

exploration. By setting up this drill site and actually drilling for coal specifically for this

13
small group of trainees, we were better able to communicate the ideas and techniques 

of coal exploration drilling. They were able to ask questions, look at everything first 

hand, etc. When the coal was cored, we demonstrated coal core desorption 

techniques used to analyze for coalbed methane. In addition, USGS brought one of 

our geophysical logging trucks to the site and geophysically logged the hole upon 

completion. All the drillers, geophysicists, geologists, and coalbed methane specialists 

were there during the entire training exercise in order to explain the procedure in detail 

and answer any questions.

The Armenian participants included a diverse group of geo-professionals, a 

cross section of the individuals we would be working with throughout the project. They 

originally included: two geochemists, one driller, three resource analysts, two 

geophysicists, and four field geologists from the three largest coal fields of Armenia. 

Unfortunately, at the last minute, the Geology Department substituted one of the field 

geologists with a Deputy Minister. Although this substitution did not hinder the training 

in a concrete way, things were more tenuous than they might have been otherwise 

because the trainees were no longer a cohesive group of counterpart peers, but 

included management as well.

Recommendation: For future training courses, keep individuals of equal 

status together and do not mix them in one training group.

By having the training early in the program, USGS project participants got to 

know the Armenian individuals, and our Armenian counterparts got to know the USGS

14
individuals they would be working with in Armenia. In addition, the Ministry 

counterparts got to see, first hand, coal operations, drilling projects, USGS offices, our 

manner of working and our expectations. Having the training at the beginning of the 

project was a very good way to get to know each other before the actual exploration or 

implementation of the program began.

The cross section of professional participants was very helpful in the training as 

well. There were always one or two individuals comfortable with the aspect of the 

training going on at a particular time (their specialty) and these individuals helped the 

others during training in their areas of expertise. The group was able to see the 

diverse aspects of coal exploration, mining, preparation, and utilization, and also 

benefitted from having their own experts in each of these fields as well.

Recommendation: Have training early in the program and make the group 

as diverse as possible in terms of specialities.

Training has been a major focus throughout and in ail aspects of the program. 

In addition to the training in the U.S., the USGS arranged for computer classes for all of 

the Ministry honoraria participants in Yerevan early in the program. Most of the 

Ministry employees had never used computers and computers are an integral part of all 

aspects of this program. Therefore, it was necessary to provide to our Armenian 

counterparts the basics of computer usage. The USGS established several computer 

centers, in the Ministry's Geology Department, GeoEconomic Center, Geophysics 

Expedition, and Coal Quality Laboratory, and then gave specialized computer 

instruction to each of these groups on the specific hardware and software. USGS has

15
also been available throughout the program to answer all questions concerning the 

computerization of the Geology Department.

English was also important to the Ministry participants of this program. Although 

all instruction manuals in this program were translated into Russian, English is 

necessary to run the computers and computerized instruments, communicate with 

manufacturers, vendors, or other scientists, and to read much of the scientific literature. 

Therefore, USGS arranged for English classes for all the Ministry honoraria employees 

during each winter of the program.

For each major aspect of the project, including coal quality laboratory 

instruments, the geophysical logging probes and computer programs, the database and 

coal resource software, there was extensive and thorough individual training by USGS 

specialists and/or instrument manufacturers. This type of training was repeated 

throughout the program for all components of the program.

The Ministry honoraria computer specialist was trained on all of the software 

used in this program, as well as the procedure to register hardware and software. 

USGS also arranged for her to spend several weeks with a computer company to leam 

aspects of computer hardware. The Ministry honoraria computer specialist is trained to 

use all the software installed on the computers, how to install software, and 

maintenance of personal computers and hardware repair.

The Ministry honoraria geophysicist has shown an aptitude for computer 

programming and has been enrolled in many computer courses through the Coal 

Exploration program. He has used his training to write software programs for different

16
aspects of the program. In addition, a USGS coalbed methane specialist trained the 

Ministry geophysicist in the theory, procedure, and instrumentation used in coal core 

desorption, so he would be able to test coal core for coalbed gas (methane).

All of the Ministry honoraria employees were registered by USGS to attend the 

First International Energy Conference in Armenia, hosted by the Armenian Chapter of 

the Association of Energy Engineers held in July 1998.

17
II. COMPUTER CENTER/DATABASES/MAP DIGITIZING

The RA Ministry of Environment now possesses the hardware, 

software, and expertise for geological database creation, map 

making, geological synthesization including borehole correlations, 

drafting, data manipulation, resource calculation, desktop 

publishing, and more.

In addition, the RA Ministry of Environment now possesses 

computerized databases of all coal, oil shale, and carbonaceous 

shale deposits in Armenia. AH geologic and topographic maps of 

the major coal fields of Armenia are in digital format. All information 

pertaining to all coal deposits is housed in databases, so that should 

technological, ecological, or political parameters or needs change, 

resources may be re-calculated very quickly.

Furthermore, databases of other commodities (zeolite and 

copper/molybdenum) have been completed or started and Ministry of 

Environment employees now possess the knowledge and ability to 

create databases or create maps for most resources of interest in 

Armenia.

The USGS established a computer center within the Geology Department of the 

Ministry of Environment and set up a computer room in the GeoEconomic Scientific 

Center within the Ministry. Software that was installed at both locations and upon 

which Ministry employees were trained as part of the Coal Exploration Program include:

GSMCAD a CAD digitizing program for the production of maps 

(freeware designed and distributed by the USGS)

Designer a graphics package for creating maps from the digitized files 

or creating original graphics

WordPerfect a word processing and desk top publishing software 

QuattroPro a spreadsheet program

18
Suffer a two- or three-dimensional modeling program to model 

geologic or geochemica! data

Stratifact a geologic and stratigraphic relational database program 

that allows for housing not only stratigraphic data, but 

geophysical logs, coal quality information, fluid information, 

and other borehole condition information; the program also 

allows for contouring, creating fence diagrams, and has 

math and volumetrics modules; the program also has 

powerful graphics which allow for on-screen stratigraphic 

correlations throughout the extent of the deposit.

PC Cores a reserve evaluation, completely compatible with Stratifact, 

which allows for borehole data capture, editing data, 

displaying borehole profiles, gridding, contouring, seam 

model evaluation, and report generation.

Miscellaneous virus protection software

USGS computer specialists installed ail of the above mentioned software, with 

the exception of PC Cores, on Ministry computers. USGS computer specialists trained 

Ministry counterparts these software and have been available throughout the program, 

via e-mail or fax, to answer questions. The GSMCAD manual was translated into 

Russian.

The PC Cores program was installed by the computer programmer who wrote 

the program. This gentleman also trained all the Ministry counterparts on its usage and 

has been available throughout the program to answer any questions on its operation.

The USGS and Ministry honoraria employees have digitized more than 40 maps 

of all the coal, combustible shale, and oil shale areas of Armenia. All coal-related

19
maps are now in digital format and are stored in the Ministry computers. Usually this is 

a multi-step process. First, a topographic base must be created. The topography 

needs to be digitized and every point, reference elevation, road, topographic line, town, 

and river, as well as other information receives its own code. Once this is finished, the 

geology is digitized to be placed on top. Care must be taken to orient and align 

coordinates. Digitizing takes practice and skill. Once all features (topography, roads, 

rivers, geology, and other necessary information) are digitized, this file or files are then 

taken into a graphics program and made into what one normally thinks of as a map. 

Polygons are created and closed within this step, appropriate age-related color is 

added, appropriate lithologic-related symbols are added, the legend is created, and the 

other necessary steps for completion of a map are finished.

Databases were created of all available coal archival information. This was a 

very ambitious undertaking and took years to complete. However, now complete 

stratigraphic databases exist of all available coal information in Armenia. These 

databases reside within Ministry computers. A great deal of time was spent searching 

for data, which were in chaotic order and difficult to locate and organize. Information 

on maps of different time periods of this century, coordinate systems, and different 

scales required correlation. Within the Soviet Union, an internal system of coordinates 

was used on all working (non-military) maps. This internal coordinate system changed 

with time and no guidelines exist to correlate these different systems. Maps of the 

same location from different time periods did not correlate with each other.

20
Topography and reference points on different maps, once digitized, often ended up 

being very different. Spatial coordinates are critical in a database in order to 

geographically locate and use the data (boreholes, trenches, etc.). In addition, none of 

the archival maps were in geodetic coordinates and therefore they needed to be 

georeferenced.

in addition, there were often disagreements within the archival reports between 

the geochemical data and their locations and/or sample intervals and the stratigraphic 

horizon of the coal. The intervals in the two data sets were often different and a good 

deal of time was spent researching and correlating the data for input into both the 

resource and geochemistry databases.

Databases were created at the geochemistry laboratory of ail the archival coal 

quality data (described in more detail under the "Coal Quality Laboratory" section). 

The data points in the coal quality database had no data locality points because 

geologists never submitted localities with their orders. So, the honoraria computer 

specialist and resource analyst needed to look through all the resultant geologic 

reports for the data localities. This, also, took a great deal of time because the 

geologists often used different numbers on their orders and in their reports, there were 

often no cross referencing items such as sample intervals or even lithologies, and 

sometimes the data that were available simply disagreed.

Using the databases, coal resources were then calculated for all the major coal 

fields. An exercise was undertaken jointly by USGS and Ministry honoraria resource

21
analysts to illustrate that the manual method of coal resource calculation used 

previously by the Ministry and the new computerized method used within this Project 

are similar and would yield similar resource estimates. Two coal fields - Ijevan and 

Jajur - were chosen for this exercise. Relatively small areas were chosen for this 

exercise mainly because only small areas had been calculated manually. Both the 

Jajur and the Ijevan results indicate that the two methods give very similar results. 

These numbers are not the full resource estimates for these deposits, but rather only 

estimates from small areas to compare the resource methodologies.

Jaiur Coat Bed No. 2

Manually

Area= 118,806m2

2.33 m average thickness

Calculated Resource =

332,067 metric tonnes

By Computer (PC Cores) 

Area = 128,000 m2 

2.16 m average thickness 

Calculated Resource =

331,453 metric tonnes

Jaiur Coal Bed No. 6

Manually

Area = 106,820m2 

1.1m average thickness 

Calculated Resource =

144,930 metric tonnes

Bv Computer (PC Cores) 

Area= 102,500m2 

0.99 m average thickness 

Calculated Resource =

122,254 metric tonnes

lievan Coal Bed

Manually

Surface area = 24,799 m2 

14.72 m average thickness 

Calculated Resource =

618,504 metric tonnes

Bv Computer (PC Cores) 

Surface area = 25,200 m2 

14.72 m average thickness 

Calculated Resource =

626,882 metric tonnes

22
In addition to the compiled databases on coal, carbonaceous or combustible 

shale, and oil shale, the Ministry honoraria resource analyst, with help from the USGS, 

built a database of the Noyemberian zeolite deposit resources, using the software 

previously used for building coal databases (Stratifact). Resources were then 

calculated for the zeolite deposit. As with the coal comparisons, the zeolite results 

(below) are very similar between the manual method and the computerized method, 

well within the margins of error.

Bed 

No.

1

III

IV

Total

Manual Calculation

Resource, 

tonnes

1,184,600

1,402,700

4,081,700

6,669,000

Zeolite 

content

52.7%

52.9%

53.0%

52.8%

Computerized Calculation

Resource, 

tonnes

1,286,500

1,358,300

3,761,500

6,406,300

Zeolite 

content

51.8%

51.0%

51.6%

51.5%

This exercise illustrated the flexibility of the software used on this 

project and showed that it can be used for many resource purposes.

The computerization of any geologic information or data and the 

software and expertise to calculate resources with the computer is 

important because it better allows for meeting changing 

environmental, societal, or political needs or technological 

advances.

23
III. COAL QUALITY LABORATORY

The RA Ministry of Environment now possesses the equipment and 

expertise for complete coal quality analyses (ultimate and proximate 

analyses), coal preparation, and has a Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control program in place in the Ministry's Central Laboratory.

This is the only laboratory in the entire region with the ability to 

perform coal quality analyses with state of art equipment, well 

trained chemists, with an in-place Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

program, with results backed up by an international Round Robin 

Program. This is especially important since many countries 

surrounding Armenia use coal to produce electricity. This laboratory 

can provide the analyses needed concerning technological 

parameters and environmental/ecological concerns.

A complete coal quality laboratory was established within the Ministry of 

Environment at the Central Laboratory on Komitas Street as part of the Coal 

Exploration Program. The USGS purchased equipment for, shipped, set up, and 

trained the Ministry chemists on all aspects of coal preparation and coal quality 

analyses, USGS undertook extensive repairs and construction within the laboratory: 

plumbing and electrical wiring were completely overhauled; walls, ceilings, and floors 

were completely rebuilt; windows were replaced and security bars were added; a 

completely new room was added for the database and reporting computer; furniture 

was built to accommodate the new instruments; the ventilation system was repaired. 

The USGS also purchased and installed a generator for the laboratory and rewired the 

building to allow use of the generator to conduct coal quality analyses when electricity 

failed (especially in the early years of the project).

24
USGS purchased, shipped, and installed the following equipment, for a complete 

coal preparation facility and coal quality laboratory:

Coal Preparation Equipment includes:

Crushers, grinders, splitters, ventilation system, air drying oven, balances, 

scales, ultrasonic cleaner, sample bags, bottles, bag sealer, sample mixer, 

thermex (water heater), air compressor, wet/dry vac, and safety equipment such 

as dust masks, eye protection, hearing protection, and more.

Coal Analytical Equipment includes:

Oxygen Bomb Calorimeter (Parr 1281 Calorimeter). This instrument is 

designed to measure the heat of combustion of solid and liquid fuels (such as 

coal), combustible wastes, foods, feeds, and other oxygen combustible 

materials. Calorimetry is an established technology in which water is circulated 

around the bomb to bring all inner parts of the calorimeter to a uniform 

temperature rapidly, while true isoperibol operating conditions are maintained by 

an outer water jacket. Microprocessor based, real time heat leak corrections are 

applied to implement the isoperibol jacketing method and to support the 

prediction of the final temperature rise. Precise temperature measurements are 

made with thermistor thermometry providing 0.0001 °C resolution over the 

operating range of the calorimeter.

JR Sulfur Analyzer (Houston Atlas 880M Sulfur Analyzer). This instrument is 

designed to determine total sulfur content within a sample. Weighed samples 

are burned in a vertical combustion tube, and the resultant combustion gases 

are drawn from the tube and transferred to the IR bench, where the S02 content 

is determined by infrared absorption. The measurement technique of the IR 

(infrared) detector is based on the fact that certain gases absorb infrared 

radiation at specific wavelengths. The amount of radiation absorbed is 

proportional to the concentration of the gas and the optical length occupied by 

that gas between the IR source and the detector. Sulfur content is determined 

by the IR analyzer after combustion of a premeasured sample in a 99.5% oxygen 

atmosphere. This environment ensures that sulfur species are quantitatively 

converted to S02. Combustion gases are drawn through desiccant and 

particulate filters to remove moisture and particulate matter before introducing 

the gas into the sample cell of the IR bench.

25
Thermogravimetric Analyzer (TGA) (a Leco TGA-601). Instrumentation for the 

characterization of organic/inorganic materials and microstructurai analysis. The 

TGA-601 Thermogravimetric Analyzer is used to determine the composition of 

organic, inorganic, and synthetic materials. It measures weight loss as a 

function of temperature in a controlled environment. Thermogravimetric analysis 

methods can contain as many as six weight loss steps per method. The main 

usage of this instrument during this Program was to perform the determination of 

moisture, ash yield, volatile matter, and fixed carbon.

CHNS Analyzer (Fisons EA1108 Elemental Analyzer). The Elemental Analyzer 

EA1108 is an instrument designed for the micro, semi-micro, and macro 

determination of total carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen present in 

a wide range of organic and inorganic substances such as coal, coke, organic 

chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, fuels, gasolines, oils, metal 

powders, steel, polymers, rubbers, catalysts, soils, sediments, ceramics, carbon 

fibers, and many others. The original analytical method is based on the 

complete and instantaneous oxidation of the sample by "flash combustion" which 

converts all organic and inorganic substances into combustion products. The 

resulting combustion gases pass through a reduction furnace and are swept into 

the chromatographic column by the carrier gas (helium) where they are 

separated and detected by a thermal conductivity detector which gives an output 

signal proportional to the concentration of the individual components of the 

mixture.

AH of these instruments are on very large power conditioners which not only 

control fluctuations in the electricity that might damage sensitive electronics, but 

provide a battery back up should the electricity fail, to provide time to cool down 

and/or turn off the instruments without doing damage.

Manufacturers representatives installed all of the above mentioned equipment in 

the Central Laboratory. In addition, the chemists received extensive training on these 

instruments by both the manufacturer representatives as well as USGS specialists. 

Training included the operation of the instruments, as well as the theory behind the 

instrumentation, safety procedures, sample handling protocol, and data reporting and 

presentation.

26
AH laboratory procedures conform to ASTM (American Society for Testing and 

Materials) standards and procedures. Reporting categories are presented in both 

ASTM and GOST (former Soviet State Standards, analogous to ASTM) so that all 

potential customers will be familiar with the results. All results are reported in all 

appropriate categories: for example, calorific value is reported in both calories/gram 

and Btu/pound.

AH of the manufacturer instrument manuals were completely translated into 

Russian by the USGS at the beginning of the project, for the safe and efficient use of 

the instruments by the Armenian chemists.

The USGS undertook the responsibility of repairing all the equipment during the 

Program as well as interacting with all vendors and/or manufacturers about questions 

or problems. During the last six months of the program, the Ministry chemists 

undertook this responsibility, in order to be comfortable with the process when the 

program ended.

In addition to the training on the four instruments listed above, the chemists 

received in-depth training on coal preparation techniques from USGS specialists. 

Analytical results of coal are directly dependent upon the preparation procedures, so a 

great deal of time was spent concerning training on this subject. The chemists were 

trained on analytical techniques, operation of instruments, safety procedures, sample 

handling protocol, and sample reporting protocol. Control samples from the U.S. were 

routinely included with the chemists1 other analyses, for instrument and analytical 

technique control.

27
USGS also arranged for computer lessons for the chemists, because all of the 

instruments are computerized. English lessons were also arranged for the chemists 

every winter of the program. Even though the instrument manuals were translated into 

Russian, English is necessary to actually run the instruments, English is also 

necessary to use the computers to build and manipulate coal databases, interact with 

potential customers, ask technical and operational questions of the instrument 

manufacturers, and deal with instrument repairers.

As part of this Program, the USGS arranged for a U.S. laboratory inspector from 

CT&E Inc. to visit the Central Laboratory twice. The first visit was spent inspecting 

preparation procedures, analytical techniques, sample handling, reporting procedures, 

and any other operational procedure necessary for a successful coal laboratory. The 

laboratory inspector made a number of suggestions, imposed quality standards, 

requested log books be created for each instrument, etc. His main concern and input 

to the laboratory was to implement critical standardization practices. After the 

laboratory inspector's visit, we implemented a Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

program within the laboratory. For a year and a half, until the laboratory inspector's 

return to Armenia, he continued oversight of the standardization practices, reviewing 

the round robin results, and log books, by keeping in touch with the chemists by fax or 

e-mail via the USGS. The laboratory inspector returned a year and a half later, saw 

great improvement, and his final report was translated into Russian for the chemists.

The USGS arranged for the Ministry coal laboratory to participate in a round

28
robin program to ensure international acceptability of analytical results. The round 

robin program is run by Laboratory Quality Services International. Each month, the 

laboratory was sent two coal samples, upon which the chemists perform a complete 

series of analytical tests. The results were faxed back to LQSI and the laboratory's 

results compared to hundreds of other laboratories. The program provides an 

independent audit tool to confirm the effectiveness of a laboratory's quality control 

procedures (both preparation and analytical procedures). In addition, the round robin 

program provides the laboratory with quality control samples to be used in the 

evaluation of the lab's precision and bias of their analytical methods; provides 

proficiency testing and other interlaboratory comparisons; and develops evidence of 

repeatability and reproducibility of analytical test procedures through inter- and intralaboratory studies.

The results of the round robin program will be the single most 

sought after evidence of a laboratory's abilities by potential 

customers.

The USGS also set up a computer in the geochemistry laboratory and USGS 

computer specialists trained the Ministry chemists on the use of the computer as well 

as the software (including QuattroPro, WordPerfect, and virus protection software) 

installed on the computer, including a specially designed and written program to 

automatically record some of the coal preparation parameters. This computer houses 

databases consisting of information and analyses for all newly analyzed samples.

29
In addition, the Ministry chemists and USGS personnel created databases of all 

archival coal quality analyses. This was a long term commitment, as there are huge 

amounts of archival data and the data were in a state of decay and confusion when we 

started this project. Every coal, carbonaceous shale, and oil shale field, and peat 

deposit in Armenia has a specific database and all available archival data for each 

deposit is housed in the computer. All databases reside at the Central Laboratory.

In addition, a great deal of time was spent by other honoraria members (the 

computer specialist and one of the resource specialists) and USGS in combing through 

many archival reports to get data locality points for the geochemical database. The 

geochemistry laboratory did not have any localities for their data (information was 

never submitted with the samples) and each separate order ended up in a different 

archival report. AH of these reports needed to be examined to find information for each 

different borehole, trench, or adit locality in order to determine the location point for the 

data.

As explained above, the Coal Exploration Project provided the laboratory with an 

instrument capable of determining total sulfur content. However, the determination of 

pyritic, sulfate, and organic sulfur, important coal quality parameters desired by many 

potential customers, are stili done manually.

The ability to determine pyritic and sulfate sulfur exists at the Central Laboratory 

and is now routinely being performed. For the past several months, these tests (forms 

of sulfur) have been performed on the round robin samples received each month.

30
Results for pyritic sulfur determination, probably one of the most important coal quality 

parameters, have been very good. This is an important addition to the laboratory's 

capabilities in offering different quality testing to potential customers.

The same chemist who performs the forms of sulfur analyses, has undertaken 

washability (cleaning) analyses. These are analytical techniques that simulate coal 

cleaning. Once the coal sample has been washed, coal quality analyses are run on the 

cleaned coal. These tests will be particularly important for potential customers, 

especially as cleaner sources of fuels are emphasized world wide.

31
IV. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING STATION

The RA Ministry of Environment now possesses the equipment and 

expertise for completely computerized geophysical borehole logging 

exploration.

The USGS purchased, shipped, and installed all computerized geophysical 

borehole logging equipment necessary in coal exploration. The Coal Exploration 

Program purchased geophysical logging equipment capable of measuring the following 

parameters:

resistivity

spontaneous potential

natural gamma

gamma-gamma density

caliper

point resistance

temperature

fluid resistivity

USGS also purchased, shipped, and installed a 1000 meter capacity drawworks 

(1000 m cable), computers, support software, tool interface card, tools, and safety 

equipment at the Geophysical Expedition.

In addition to logging for coal exploration, this equipment can be used for almost 

any type of exploration that requires lithologic distinctions of rock or delineation of 

specific horizons (such as water-bearing horizons, and includes exploration for coal, 

oil, gas, salt, oil shale, gold, metals (such as copper, molybdenum), water well drilling, 

fracture studies, and more. The main limitation for using this equipment for such things 

as oil and gas exploration (post borehole drilling, not simultaneous logging) is the

32
length of the cable. If potential clients or users need a tool or ability that is not listed 

above (such as an inclinometer), one can be easily purchased and installed. The 

equipment was purchased from a major US company (Century Geophysical) for this 

very reason - to have the ability to expand should the need arise in the future.

USGS geophysicists installed this equipment on a Ministry truck and trained 

Ministry geophysicists in ail aspects of this computerized equipment. In addition, quite 

a bit of time was spent training Ministry geophysicists on logging specifically for coal. 

However, the theory and nuances of logging for other geologic materials were also 

covered.

The two USGS geophysicists returned to Armenia about a year after installing 

the equipment for follow up, hands-on training which took place during USGS drilling in 

the Antaramut coal field. Therefore, ail the downhole functions and processes could be 

examined, recommendations made on the Ministry honoraria geophysicist's techniques, 

interpretations, and safety procedures.

One of the USGS geophysicists again visited Armenia to work with the Ministry 

geophysicist in spring of 1998. Several days was spent in the field at the USGS drilling 

site, perfecting techniques for coal logging, protocol, and safety procedures. The 

USGS geophysicist repaired and cleaned the logging probes that were operating at 

less than maximum capability and helped recalibrate the probes. The USGS specialist 

also installed the newest and most versatile version of the logging software from the 

company during this visit and trained the Ministry geophysicist on its usage.

Throughout the extent of the Program, USGS geophysicists have been in touch

33
with the Ministry geophysicist to answer questions and offer advice, via fax and e-mail 

through the Yerevan USGS office.

In addition to the in-depth training the Ministry geophysicist received from USGS 

specialists, the USGS arranged several computer training courses for the geophysicist 

throughout the Project. He also attended the English classes arranged by the USGS 

every winter of the Program. The entire set of manuals for the geophysical logging 

station (for the probes as well as the computer programs) were translated into Russian 

for the safe and efficient use of the equipment.

In addition to the holes that were logged as part of the Coal Exploration and 

Resource Assessment Program, this equipment was used to log other holes that were 

drilled throughout Armenia in the last several years. These holes included boreholes 

for salt, gold, polymetals, and water exploration.

As part of the Coal Exploration Project, the Ministry geophysicist digitized many 

of the archival logs which date back to the 1950's. These were in a state of decay and 

maintenance was becoming difficult. Digitizing the data helped preserve these data, 

allowed for categorization of the holes by regions, and made this valuable information 

available for any exploration purpose. These are irreplaceable data that can benefit 

any exploration program.

A copy of all of the geophysical curves logged as part of the Coal Exploration 

Program as well as many of the archival geophysical logs are found in the following 

reference:

34
Pierce, Brenda S. and Grigorian, Grigor, 1999, A Brief Review of 

Borehole Geophysical Logging Activities in Armenia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-561,140 p.

35
V. EXPLORATORY DRILLING

USGS repaired and modified a Russian SKB-4 (CKB-4) core drilling rig to 

perform both rotary and core drilling to maximize drilling capabilities. This included 

obtaining a much larger mud pump and attaching it to the drill rig. A combination of 

Russian and U.S. manufactured equipment was used. American core barrels and drill 

steel were used. Both American and Russian drill bits were used to maximize drilling 

efficiency by allowing for a range of drilling sizes, easier procurement when bits wore 

out, and a range of prices and qualities. It was easy to use the combination with 

specially manufactured subs between the two systems of measurement (English and 

metric). Bentonite was obtained locally, in Ijevan, but chemical polymer was shipped 

from the U.S.

The USGS received the shell of a drill rig and the shell of a water truck from the 

Ministry Ijevan Expedition in the spring of 1996. The USGS basically rebuilt both 

trucks, installing engines, hydraulics, windows, doors, brakes, clutches, tires, and much 

more, as well as completely replacing the entire drilling system on the drill rig.

The USGS, together with the Ministry's Ijevan Expedition, started drilling in the 

Ijevan coal field in the summer of 1996. USGS had planned, with the Ijevan Expedition, 

to conduct much more exploration drilling (3000-4000 meters) than was actually done. 

USGS worked with Ministry accountants and Geology Department management for 

several months in order to legally realign the Ijevan Expedition's budget in order to drill 

cooperatively. However, the Scientific Technical Council of the Geology Department, 

in April of 1996, decided that there were no geologic, technical, or economic reasons to

36
drill more than 500 meters and only in the central part of the Ijevan coal field. 

Therefore, the USGS worked with the Ijevan Expedition to complete what they could of 

their State Plan for Coal Exploration with the drilling equipment available. A USGS 

drilling expert, with expertise in coal exploration and this combined rotary-coring 

technique, trained Ministry drillers on the use of the new equipment and specific 

protocols for coal exploration.

With the joint Ijevan work completed, USGS moved to the Antaramut coal field 

and started working with the Ministry's Gugark Expedition. Together, the USGS and 

the Gugark Expedition drilled three holes during the fall of 1996, also in fulfillment of 

their State Plan for Coal Exploration. With the finalization of that drilling, USGS 

undertook drilling operations entirely on our own. Thus, after official amendment to the 

MOU signed by the AID Mission Representative and the Minister of Environment, the 

USGS undertook sole responsibility for drilling operations.

USGS took the drill equipment back to Yerevan over the winter of 1996-1997 to 

repair and overhaul the equipment. Unusually heavy snowfall and spring rains that 

year delayed the beginning of the drilling season until May of 1997. However, in May, 

USGS moved back to the Antaramut coal field and began two years of exploratory 

drilling. Results of that work is found under the section titled "Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh Coal Field."

37
V. a. Core Warehouse

The USGS established a core and cuttings facility at the Ministry's Geophysical 

Expedition. USGS built a core and cuttings storage facility, where none had existed 

before. This was necessary in order to inventory and archive coal and rock samples - 

core, cutting, and outcrop samples.

V. b. Coal Bed Methane

USGS purchased all of the equipment necessary to test for coalbed methane 

within Armenian coals. A USGS coalbed methane specialist trained the Ministry 

geophysicist in the theory, procedure, and instrumentation to test coal core for coalbed 

methane desorption. AH of the equipment resides in the Geophysical Expedition. 

Unfortunately, USGS never drilled deep enough to test for coalbed methane (shallower 

than a certain depth, the methane, if once present, has bled off and is no longer 

present in the coal). The exploration drilling in the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal 

field proved the field to be a bigger resource than anticipated, and we spent time 

drilling there, rather than wildcat drilling for coalbed methane. Unfortunately, no 

Ministry Expeditions drilled for coal in the last several years in order to test any other 

wells for the presence of coalbed methane, either.

38
VI. SATELUTE IMAGE MAP

The USGS produced a Satellite Image Map of Armenia. This satellite image 

map was produced at two scales: 1:250,000 and 1:100,000. The 1:250,000 scale 

comes in two sheets - east and west. The 1:100,000 scale map comes as seven 

quadrangles covering the entire country: Shirak, Ijevan, Yerevan, Sevan Lake, 

Karabakh, Middle Araks, and Zangezur.

The images were recorded by Landsat Thematic Mapper in the multispectral 

mode composed of the bands: Band 2 (0.52 - 0.60 /^m), Band 4 (0.76 - 0.80 /^m), and 

Band 7 (2.08 - 2.35 //m). The imagery was controlled and geometrically corrected 

using the restoration resampling algorithm with 15m cells and filtered with a 151 x 151 

filter to which 85 percent of the unfiltered data were added back. Data are from 

imagery taken September 1984, September 1987, and August 1989.

The maps come with explanations in three languages - Armenian, Russian, and 

English - to maximize interest and usage. Half of the 1:250,000 scale maps come with 

place name overlays in three languages and half of the maps were produced without 

the text place name overlays for researchers who will need unobstructed views of the 

land, topography, and geology.

In addition, for research purposes, the USGS printed several photo copies of the 

1:100,000 scale maps, both in normal ratio'd color and offset ratios. One complete set 

(7 quads) was given to the Ministry of Environment's Archival Fund and another set 

was given to the Armenian Academy of Sciences library. It is hoped that being housed 

in these two libraries will make it available to all interested parties.

39
These maps were published as a formal USGS series so as to be available to all 

interested parties. The citations are as follows:

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Satellite Image Map of Armenia and 

Surrounding Territory, 1:250,000 scale: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map, 1-2665, 2 sheets.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Satellite Image Map of Armenia and 

Surrounding Territory, 1:100,000 scale: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map, I-2678 A through E.

Even though these maps were published, all major research institutions in 

Armenia, as well as the AID Mission and Embassy, received copies of the satellite 

image map. After seeing copies of the maps, many other organizations also requested 

copies which were provided to them. The distribution list in Armenia is as follows:

Ministry of Environment

and the Republic of Armenia Archival Fund

Ministry of Energy

Fuel Department

Engineering-Geological-Topographical Department - 

ArmEnergoHydro Proyekt

Ministry of Transportation

(At the time of writing this report, many of the Ministries were under 

reorganization, so copies had not been distributed. However copies of the map 

are also planned to be given to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of 

Civil Engineering)

RA Committee on Extreme/Hazardous Conditions (such as earthquake relief) 

institute of Nonferrous Metals - Geology Department

Armenian Academy of Sciences 

Institute of Geology 

institute of Biology

40
Institute of Geography

Center for Environmental Investigations

Institute of Geophysics and Seismology

Geographical Society

National Center for Seismic Protection

GKZ (State Committee on Reserve Estimation)

American University of Armenia

Yerevan State University - Geology Department, Geography Department, and 

Biology (Environment) Department

Geography Department of the Ecological College of Yerevan 

Gugark Marspet and Mars Geologist

Ministry of Education was provided 1400 copies - 

one for each school in Armenia

Already the maps are being used in a variety of research and teaching projects, 

which include: geological and environmental studies within the Ministry of Environment; 

geological studies in the Institute of NonFerrous Metals; environmental studies and 

course curricula at the American University of Armenia; the American University of 

Armenia also plans on using the satellite image as a base map in a GIS system to 

determine land use changes in Armenia over the last four decades; compilation of an 

"Atlas of Roads of Armenia" by the Ministry of Transportation; assessment of seismic, 

volcanic, and landslide hazards in Armenia and neighboring countries; and many other 

uses.

41
VII. COAL IN ARMENIA

There are six major coal fields in Armenia (fig. 1):

Antaramut, in north-central Armenia 

Shamut, in north-central Armenia 

Jajur, in north-western Armenia 

Nor Arevik, in southernmost Armenia 

Jermanis, in south-central Armenia 

Ijevan, in north-eastern Armenia

Coal occurs all over Armenia and USGS conducted a great deal of work on each of 

these six areas.

VII. a. Archival Information

USGS collected, interpreted, and synthesized data for each of the major coal 

fields of Armenia from all of the previously unaccessible (government proprietary) data 

in the Republic of Armenia Archival Fund or the Armenian Academy of Sciences. All 

reports within the State Archives and Academy of Sciences related to coal in Armenia 

were obtained, translated, and analyzed. Ail of the basic data - stratigraphic, coal 

quality, and coal resource information - relating to each of the coal deposits were 

entered into databases as well as synopsized in the following reports. The archival 

material was often conflicting, even in small areas, and it took a great deal of time to sift 

through the material, correlate coal beds within a deposit, and match maps of different 

scales in different reports.

Much time was also spent in trying to convert coordinate systems into real-world

42
coordinates, usually into latitudes and longitudes. Within the Soviet Union, an internal 

system of coordinates was used on all working (non-military) maps. This internal 

coordinate system was a systematic x-y coordinate system. The internal system of 

coordinates for the data points on the exploration works or maps from a coal field were 

converted into latitude/longitude. Matching different maps, however, was often very 

difficult. Sometimes, maps or coordinate localities were intentionally altered in the past 

for security reasons, especially on small or topical maps, such as mineral deposit 

maps. Conversion of the old, internal coordinate systems was necessary (when 

possible) not only for comparison purposes and illustrative purposes for exhibiting the 

data, but also necessary for the addition of new data or the combination of different 

data sets.

Often, we recalculated the coal resource information using computerized 

techniques and combining all data within the archives. For the first time, data on all 

coal deposits in Armenia appear in one place. The basic data from each of the archival 

reports on each coal field is supplemented with additional data from the USGS work. 

These reports will be published so that interested users have access to them. The 

following represent this synthesization of archival information and the following four 

manuscripts are currently in the process of being published:

Shamut Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, 2000, The Shamut Coal Deposit, North-Central Armenia, U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 2175, 71 p.

Jajur Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, in review, The Jajur Coal Field of Northwestern Armenia, U.S.

43
Geological Survey Bulletin, 86 p., 3 figures, 16 tables.

Nor Arevik Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, in review, The Nor Arevik Coal Field of Southernmost 

Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

Antaramut Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, in review, The Antaramut Coal Field of North-Central 

Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

The following two manuscripts are currently in preparation and will be in review 

soon:

Jermanis Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, in preparation, The Jermanis Coal Field of South-Central 

Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

tjevan Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Malkhasian, Gourgen, and 

Martirosyan, Artur, in preparation, The Ijevan Coal Field of North-Eastem 

Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

VII. b. New Field Work and Geologic Mapping

in addition, USGS conducted detailed field work and mapped each of these coal 

regions, utilizing new ideas to map with coal resources in mind. All areas, except one, 

were mapped in detail, coal quality samples were taken when possible, and the new 

information is in the process of being published. The Ijevan coal field was not mapped 

in detail, although work was done there, because the Ministry of Environment*s 

Scientific Technical Council officially decided to cease work being conducted in the 

coal field after 500 m of drilling was completed.

Complications arose during the mapping of these coal fields because of the type 

of map available (or rather, not available) in Armenia. Only 1:25,000 scale maps are

44
available in Armenia - all others are deemed government proprietary. Actually the 

1:25,000 scale are also proprietary, but we managed to secure the necessary ones for 

our field areas. However, using this kind of scale - where 1 cm is equal to 250 m and 

often the topographic contour interval is 5 m - is very difficult for the detailed work 

required to map the coal areas. Often we either scanned or digitized the 1:25,000 map 

and changed the scale digitally to 1:5,000 or 1:10,000. However, both of these options 

introduce some errors. Using these converted maps to map our geology produced only 

minor problems; however, locating previously mapped data onto these maps created 

serious problems.

The following publications represent new information on each of the major coal 

deposits:

Jajur Coal Deposit: Dallegge, Todd A., Martirosyan, Artur, Maldonado, 

Florian, and Pierce, Brenda S., in review, Stratigraphy and Geology of Tertiary 

Coal-Bearing Deposits, Shirak Region, Northwestern Armenia, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report, 47 p., 4 figures, 1 geologic map.

Nor Arevik Coal Deposit: Johnson, Edward A., Martirosyan, Artur, Pierce, 

Brenda S., and Brownfield, Michael E., in review, Geology of the Nor Arevik 

Area, Megri Region, Southern Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report, 20 p., 4 figures, 1 geologic map.

Jermanis Coal Deposit: Brownfield, Michael E., Martirosyan, Artur, Pierce, 

Brenda S., and Johnson, Edward A., Geology and Coal Quality of the Jermanis 

Coal Field, central Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

lievan Coal Deposit: Warwick, P.O., Maldonado, F., Pierce, B.S., 

Tutunjian, M., Chubarian, G., and Brutian, H., 1996, A volcanogenic depositional 

model for a thick Jurassic coal-bearing interval, lesser Caucasus, Armenia:

45
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, vol. 28, p. A-209. 

Warwick, P.O., Maldonado, F., Tutunjian, Mels, Chubarian, Grachik, and Brutian, 

Haik, in review, Geologic road log from Ijevan to Dilijan, northeastern Armenia: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report.

The following manuscript is currently in preparation, is almost completed, and 

will be available soon:

Shamut Coal Deposit: Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, Harutunian, 

Samvell, and Harutunian, Grigory, in review, Geology of the Shamut Coal Field, 

north-central Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

For the results on the Antaramut Coal Deposit see the separate section below.

46
VIII. THE ANTARAMUT-KURTAN-DZORAGUKH COAL FIELD

USGS conducted detailed field work and exploratory drilling in the AntaramutKurtan-Dzoragukh coal field of north-central Armenia. This coal field is located in the 

central part of the Lori Mars (region). Coal has been reported in and around the village 

of Antaramut since the turn of the century and it was mined by the French in 1915 for 

use in a copper smelter in Alaverdi. However, coal had always been thought to have 

occurred in a very small area of approximately 1 sq km. Other coal occurrences had 

been reported in the region, but none of the previous workers thought that the coal 

occurrences were related. All previous geologists thought that the small coal 

exposures at Antaramut, Kurtan, and Dzoragukh were isolated occurrences, unrelated 

to one another. Some workers even gave them different ages. As a direct result of this 

Program's work, USGS expanded a known or expected coal area of 1 km2 to an area 

approximately 20 km2. Thus, we have re-named the coal field the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coal field to include the three villages in the area that the coal field 

encompasses.

Drilling in the Antaramut region began in the fall of 1996. USGS drilled 3 

boreholes jointly with the Ministry of Environment's Gugark Expedition in fulfillment of 

their State Plan for Coal Exploration. For these three holes, whose location had 

already been chosen by the Expedition, the Expedition provided the drill crew and the 

USGS provided the equipment, fuel, and consumables. After these three holes were 

drilled, the Expedition's plan for coal exploration was completed. USGS continued 

drilling in the area independently, with Ministry permission, primarily because the

47
USGS believed, based upon geologic field work, that the coal field extended well 

beyond this small area.

In total, the USGS drilled 41 boreholes at 32 locations in the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coal field from May 1997 to July 1999. A map of the drill hole localities is 

located in figure 2. Total drilling equaled 4162 meters -1349 cored meters and 2813 

rotary meters. In the beginning of the exploration drilling program, we twin holed most 

locations. That is, the boreholes were rotary drilled and geophysically logged. Then, a 

second borehole, usually 4 to 5 meters away from the first, was rotary drilled to 

intervals of interest, which were then cored. However, because we encountered 

technical difficulties because of the many fractures in the strata above the coal, we 

often had to core the entire hole. Often, rotary drilling was neither safe nor efficient. 

Further, because of the complicated geologic structure of the coal field, complete 

coring gave us more information than rotary drilling.

All boreholes were described in detail and the lithologic descriptions are found in 

the publication cited below. In addition, many borehole samples and outcrop samples 

were thin sectioned and analyzed petrographically. Often, this is the only way to 

determine the exact rock type and petrographic analysis is critical to correlation of 

lithologies across a region. The thin section descriptions are also found in the 

publication cited below. The borehole descriptions and the thin section descriptions 

appear in both English and Russian.

Pierce, Brenda S., Hamtunian, Samvel, Martirosyan, Artur, and Harutunian, 

Grigory, 1999, Borehole and Thin Section Desciptions from Exploration

48
Drilling and Field Work in the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, 

North-Central Armenia, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-561, 

140 p.

Each borehole, immediately upon completion of drilling, was geophysically 

logged. All of the logging equipment installed as part of this project is described under 

the section "Geophysical Logging" of this report. As described above, a few of the 

boreholes had to be abandoned because of technical difficulties. If these holes were 

shallow, they were not geophysically logged. All geophysical logs from this project are 

found in the citation:

Pierce, Brenda S. and Grigorian, Grigor, 1999, A Brief Review of 

Geophysical Logging Activities in Armenia: Part I. Geophysical Logs from 

Coal Exploration Boreholes of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, 

north-central Armenia; Part II. Geophysical Logs from Non-Coal 

Exploration Boreholes; Part III. Archival Geophysical Logs from Various 

Exploration Boreholes throughout the Republic of Armenia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report, 99-561,140 p.

In addition to the boreholes drilled, USGS conducted extensive geologic field 

work. The entire area was walked and field surveyed, to determine outcrops and map 

the geology. Exploratory trenches were dug where the coal in the boreholes was 

projected to occur at the surface or where soil formation had obscured outcrops of the 

coal. A regional geologic map, at a 1:10,000 scale, was created of the AntaramutKurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, based upon all of the detailed geologic field work, 

exploratory drilling, trenching, and petrographic analysis:

49
Pierce, Brenda S., Harutunian, Grigory, Harutunian, Samvel, Martirosyan, 

Artur, and Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, Geologic Map of the AntaramutKurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, North-Central Armenia, U.S. Geological 

Survey l-map.

In addition, all coals encountered in the boreholes or outcrops were analyzed for 

full coal quality analyses at the Central Laboratory. The Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

coal is fairly high in ash yield, but also very high in calorific value. Washability 

analyses were conducted on some of the samples to see if the ash yield could be 

lowered. Results were very promising and the coal of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

coal field is very amendable to cleaning. A detailed analysis of the coal field, including 

coal quality analyses, stratigraphy, and interpretive analysis, such as depositional 

environment of the coal field and tectonic history is in review:

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, Malkhasian, Gourgen, 

Harutunian, Samvel, and Harutunian, Grigory, in review, Geology, 

Coal Quality, and Resources of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

Coal Field, north-central Armenia, submitted to the International 

Journal of Coal Geology.

However, ail of the coal occurrence and thickness information is contained in the 

borehole and thin section publication cited above and all the coal quality information 

and coal resource calculations are listed below.

Throughout field work and exploratory drilling, USGS maintained close ties with 

Mars (regional) officials, who were interested in the results of this study and the 

potential usability of the coal.

50
Synopsis of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field 

The Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coat deposit is a previously undiscovered coal 

field in north-central Armenia. Coal has been known to exist in the general region 

since the turn of the century, but coal was thought by all previous workers to be 

restricted to a very small (1 km2) area, in the vicinity of the village of Antaramut (box A 

in fig. 2). However, through detailed field work and exploratory drilling, this coal 

deposit has been expanded to an area of at least 20 km2, and thus renamed the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field for the three villages that the coal field 

encompasses.

The Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field contains two coal beds, each 

greater than 1 m thick, and numerous small rider beds. The entire coal-bearing 

horizon, a series of tuffaceous sandstones, siltstones, and clays, is approximately 50 m 

thick. The coal is Upper Eocene in age, high volatile bituminous in rank, and although 

relatively high in ash yield (both beds have about 40 percent ash yield, as-received 

basis) and moderate in sulfur content (upper bed has about 3 percent sulfur and the 

lower bed has about 2.7 percent sulfur, as-received basis), this coal is low in moisture 

content (about 5 percent for both beds) and relatively very high in calorific value. 

Calorific values for the upper bed are 14,033 Btu/lb or 7796 cal/g (moist, mineralmatter-free basis) and for lower bed are 15,478 Btu/lb or 8599 cal/g (moist, mineralmatter-free basis). Samples from the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal deposit were 

submitted for washability (cleaning) analyses as well. The results indicate that this coal 

is very amenable to cleaning: volatile matters were increased and ash yields were

51
lowered significantly.

Coal quality results can be found in the following tables (sample localities are on 

the map in the Appendices).

Calorific Values of Samples from the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field

[SL = sample locality; CB = coal bed; CV-C^ = calorific value, as-determined basts, in 

cal/g; CV-Cmmf = calorific value, moist mineral-matter-free basis, in cal/g; CV-B^ = 

calorific value, as-determined basis, in Btu/lb; CV-Bmmf = calorific value, moist mineralmatter-free basis, in Btu/lb; CV-Bar = calorific value, as-received basis, in Btu/lb; bh = 

borehole; nd = no data; fl = floor; ncv = no calorific value; K oc 1 = Kurtan outcrop 1; K 

oc 2 = Kurtan outcrop 2; ukn = unknown]

SL

bh9

bh15

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh19

bh20

bh20

bh21

bh24

bh26

bh26

bh27

bh31

Koc1

CB

#2

#2

#1

#2

fl

fl

#1

#1

#2

#1

#1

#1

#2

#2

#2

ukn

CVcad

nd

4139

3529

3118

2696

ncv

2568

5082

4810

6561

3260

5148

5142

5097

6220

1516

cv-cmmf

nd

7161

7808

7450

11027

ncv

6063

8020

7556

11637

5328

7919

8259

7650

13518

5242

CV-Bad

nd

7450

6352

5613

4853

ncv

4622

9147

8657

11810

5867

9327

9256

9174

11196

2728

CV-Bar

nd

7241

6229

5478

4780

ncv

4508

8905

8433

11470

5666

9071

8965

8949

10956

CV-Bmmf

nd

12890

14055

13410

19848

ncv

10914

14436

13601

20947

9591

14254

14867

13770

24333

9436

52
Koc2 ukn

Avg bed #1

Avg bed #2

2570

4716

4754

6068

8142

8599

4626

8501

8558

4358 10923

14657

15478

Proximate Analyses Results of Samples from the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field

[SL = sample locality; CB = coal bed; TM = total moisture, in percent; ADL = air dry loss 

moisture, in percent; AM = analytical moisture, in percent; A^, = ash yield, as-determined 

basis, in percent; A^ = ash yield, dry basis, in percent; VMad = volatile matter, asdetermined basis, in percent; VM^ = volatile matter, dry ash free basis, in percent; bh = 

borehole; fl = floor; K oc 1 = Kurtan outcrop 1; K oc 2 = Kurtan outcrop 2; ukn = 

unknown]

SL

bh9

bh15

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh19

bh20

bh20

bh21

bh24

bh26

bh26

bh27

bh31

CB

#2

#2

#1

#2

fl

fl

#1

#1

#2

#1

#1

#1

#2

#2

#2

TM

6.64

4.26

3.80

5.58

6.15

7.67

4.12

4.20

4.39

6.08

8.13

5.12

5.49

6.19

3.59

ADL

0.76

2.90

1.72

2.40

1.49

2.14

2.46

2.63

2.58

2.93

3.64

2.74

3.15

2.47

0.61

AM

5.92

1.40

2.12

3.27

4.73

5.65

1.70

1.62

1.86

3.24

4.65

2.45

2.42

3.81

3.00

Aad

77.35

40.45

60.96

54.31

70.28

78.90

54.49

34.14

34.03

41.22

36.47

32.06

35.19

31.03

49.55

Ad

82.22

41.04

62.22

56.16

73.77

83.62

55.43

34.69

34.67

42.60

38.3

32.86

36.05

32.26

51.08

VMad

11.28

19.26

16.29

18.71

7.87

6.33

8.66

12.00

9.00

8.69

15.49

13.85

19.61

11.09

8.89

VMdaf

67.42

33.33

45.58

44.32

31.49

40.97

19.77

18.94

14.08

16.10

26.59

21.06

31.20

17.04

18.74

53
Koc1

Koc2

ukn

ukn

2.15

10.1

1.52

575

0.64

4.61

68.78

56.52

69.22

59.24

18.00

15.59

57.46

40.27

Ultimate Analyses from Samples of the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field

[SL = sample locality; CB = coal bed; C = carbon, as-determined basis, in percent; H = 

hydrogen, as-determined basis, in percent; N ~ nitrogen, as-determined basis, in 

percent; TSj = total sulfur, as-determined basis, in percent, as-determined by 

instrumentation (sulfur analyzer or elemental analyzer); TSm * total sulfur, as-determined 

basis, in percent, as-determined manually, done while determining pyritic and sulfate 

sulfur; PS - pyritic sulfur, as-determined basis, in percent; OS = organic sulfur, asdetermined basis, in percent; SS = sulfate sulfur, as-determined basis, in percent; bh = 

borehole; fl = floor; nd = not determined]

SL

bh9

bh15

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh18

bh19

bh20

bh20

bh21

bh24

bh26

bh26

bh27

CB

#2

#2

#1

#2

fl

fl

#1

#1

#2

#1

#1

#1

#2

#2

C

nd

52.51

38.83

37.47

21.84

nd

40.76

57.18

53.06

51.52

50.57

54.11

53.74

55.26

H

nd

1.73

2.73

2.76

1.02

nd

1.36

1.97

1.76

1.54

1.28

2.47

2.66

1.72

N

nd

0.00

0.48

0.40

0.00

nd

0.08

0.49

0.35

0.50

0.12

0.55

0.86

0.47

TSf

2.7

0.27

4.5

4.9

2.6

1.9

2.7

3.2

2.6

2.9

2.2/ 

1.6*

3.8

3.4

3.3

TSm

nd

nd

nd

nd

2.6

1.9

nd

nd

nd

3.0

nd

nd

nd

nd

PS

nd

nd

nd

nd

2.3

1.6

nd

nd

nd

2.0

nd

nd

nd

nd

OS

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.1

0.0

nd

nd

nd

0.8

nd

nd

nd

nd

SS

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.2

0.2

nd

nd

nd

0.15

nd

nd

nd

nd

54
bh31

Koc1

Koc2

#2

ukn

ukn

43.68

22.04

31.42

1.15

0.84

1.77

0.00

0.20

0.42

2.3

1.1

1.8

2.3

nd

nd

1.9

nd

nd

0.1

nd

nd

0.3

nd

nd

*coal bed was divided into 6 subsampies for analysis. The top 5 subintervals (97.1 

98.2 m) sulfur content was 1.6 percent. Bottommost horizon 0.2 m had the higher 

sulfur content.

Results of Washability Analyses from Samples 

of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field

[DF = density fraction, specific gravity - f = float fraction, s = sink fraction; Rec = 

recovery at that density fraction, in percent - number at bottom of each series in 

parentheses is the total recovered as float; Mad = moisture, as-determined, in percent; Ad 

= ash yield, dry basis, in percent; VMd = volatile matter, dry basis, in percent; CV-B^ - 

calorific value, as-determined basis, in Btu/lb; CV-C^ = calorific value, as-determined 

basis, in caf/g; CV-Bd = calorific value, dry basis, in Btu/lb; CV-Cd = calorific value, dry 

basis, in cal/g; C^ = carbon, as-determined basis, in percent; Had = hydrogen, asdetermined basis, in percent; N,,, = nitrogen, as-determined basis, in percent; S^ = 

sulfur, as-determined basis, in percent]

DF Rec Mad A* VMd CV-Bad cv-c,. CV-Bd cv-cd c* H* N»d s«,

Samples from Coal No. 1 from borehole 18

1.3f

1.4f

1.5f

1.6f

1.09

3.59

7.77

11.96 

(24.41)

3.94

1.61

3.77

3.48

7.82

13.02

19.39

59.91

36.39

34.94

33.25

33.06

11421

11904

11104

12313

6345

6613

6169

6841

11889

12099

11539

12757

6605

6722

6411

6921

73.11

69.48

62.33

56.76

5.25

4.99

4.47

4.00

1.56

1.65

1.34

0.51

3.40

3.69

4.19

4.71

Samples from Coal No. 1 from borehole 18a

1.3f

1.4f

1.5f

1.6f

1.6s

1.89

8.30

16.82

25.23 

(52.23)

47.77

3.95

1.50

3.82

3.36

2.94

5.82

11.8

18.76

22.18

51.83

36.58

34.44

33.30

32.61

20.51

12421

11950

11104

10495

6246

6901

6639

6169

5831

3470

12932

12132

11545

10660

6435

7184

6740

6414

6033

3575

73.11

69.41

66.76

59.55

46.84

5.25

4.93

4.76

4.36

3.24

1.56

1.57

1.31

1.42

0.48

3.40

3.94

4.27

5.19

5.63

Samples from Coal No. 1 from borehole 18

1.3f

1.4f

1.43

5.62

3.95

1.21

5.82

12.98

36.58

35.72

12421

11929

6901

6627

12932

12075

7184

6703

56.81

61.99

4.21

4.48

1.32

1.36

3.40

4.21

55
1.5f

1.6f

14.27

25.17 

(46.50)

1.3f

1.4f

1.5f

1.6f

1.6s

1.84

5.84

12.06

18.00 

(37.74)

62.26

3.91

3.64

19.48

25.06

3.35

2.60

3.59

3.52

1.57

5.75

13.22

19.19

23.52

57.47

32.01

30.00

10929

9851

6072

5473

11374

10223

6319

5679

Samples from Coal No. 2 of borehole 18

37.04

35.13

33.43

31.53

18.87

12458

11670

10967

10412

5423

6921

6483

6093

5784

3013

12890

11982

11375

10792

5509

7161

6657

6319

5996

3061

66.23

73.11

70.45

67.23

61.X

nd

nd

4.82

5.25

4.85

4.69

4.38

nd

nd

1.40

1.56

0.89

0.73

0.84

nd

nd

4.42

4.32

3.66

4.27

5.06

nd

nd

Samples from borehole 20

1.3f

1.4f

1.5f

1.6f

1.6s

1.4f

1.5f

1.6f

1.6s

1.26

3.90

7.36

14.26 

(26.78)

73.22

3.60

2.58

3.17

2.68

3.53

3.80

10.16

16.95 

(30.91)

69.09

2.40

3.31

2.68

1.86

3.92

9.55

15.68

17.13

35.56

38.85

37.15

34.52

25.41

12.29

10.35

15.56

16.63

34.14

35.62

32.79

25.65

9.01

12976

12303

11486

11368

8971

7209

6835

6381

6316

4984

13461

12629

11862

11681

9299

7478

7016

6590

6439

5166

75.99

69.85

69.34

69.86

56.99

5.62

5.10

5.10

3.86

1.99

1.72

1.72

1.67

1.45

0.45

1.95

2.57

3.39

3.09

3.41

Samples from borehole 20

12262

11660

11421

8718

6812

6478

6345

4343

12564

12059

11736

8883

6980

6699

6520

4935

76.20

70.80

67.51

53.81

3.06

5.39

4.77

1.76

1.37

1.68

1.69

0.36

2.62

2.89

3.21

3.02

Another set of washability analyses were conducted on some of the samples as 

well. Rather than combine samples before testing them, such as was done for those 

results found above, a number of samples from each coal bed were compared directly. 

That is, ash yield and volatile matter were determined before and after density 

separations. The results of these tests, also indicative of the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coals' amenability to cleaning, are found in the table below.

56
Results of Other Washability Analyses

[SN., = sample number; A<, before ds = ash yield, dry basis, in percent, before density 

separation; SN2 = combined sample number of resultant coals; A<, after ds at 1.6 = ash 

yield, dry basis, in percent after density separation at 1.6 specific gravity; VMd before ds 

= volatile matter yield, dry basis, in percent, before density separation; VMd after ds (1.6) 

= volatile matter yield, dry basis, in percent, after density separation at 1.6 specific 

gravity]

SN1 Ad 

before 

ds

SN2 A,, after 

ds 

(1.6)

VMd 

before ds

VMd after 

ds(1.6)

Samples from Bh 1 8

UC-1

UC-2

UC-3

UC-4

UC-5

UC-6

LC-1

LC-2

LC-3

75.65

72.36

87.90

50.14

74.56

41.06

60.95

46.30

61.22

UC2+UC3

UC4+UC5 

+UC6

20.61

24.59

21.12

21.26

23.69

24.46

17.46

9.57

19.92

17.46

22.79

17.77

33.87

32.73

32.78

31.37

32.70

30.93

As can be seen from this table, cleaning resulted in much lower ash yields and 

higher volatile matters. Thus, it can be concluded that the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coals are very susceptible to cleaning techniques, should one need a better 

quality coal.

All exploration data were entered into a stratigraphic database, similar to the

ones which were created of all the archival information. From these data, resource

57
tonnage of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field was calculated for two areas. 

The first area was the entire resource area, an area of approximately 20 km2 (box C 

shown on figure 2). Resource calculations, with a density of 2.0 g/cm3 and no 

exclusions, such as for ash yield, for this area are:

Area measurement totals 16,412,148 m2 or 1641 hectares

Tonnage totals 31,597,040 metric tonnes

in addition to the total area calculations, a resource tonnage was calculated for a 

small area from Dzoragukh westward approximately 4 km (box B on figure 2). This is 

an area where we have very good borehole control and the coals outcrop at the 

surface. It is also the area of the prefeasibility study, explained in more detail in the 

next section of this report, conducted as part of this program.

Resource calculations for this smaller area, with a density of 2.0 g/cm3, and no 

exclusions, such as for ash yield, are as follows:

Area measurement totals 165,305 m2 or 165 hectares 

Tonnage for Upper Bed totals 3,605,707 metric tonnes 

Tonnage for Lower Bed totals 1,026,870 metric tonnes 

Tonnage for ail coal in this area totals 5,518,439 metric tonnes

58
IX. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE 

ANTARAMUT-KURTAN-DZORAGUKH COAL FIELD

As part of the Coal Exploration and Resource Assessment Program, an 

economic assessment (pre-feasibility study) of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal 

Field was conducted. However, it must be stated here that the USGS program is a 

resource assessment and not a mine development program. Thus, the exploration 

boreholes were placed for purposes of resource assessment, not for mine 

development. The boreholes are too widely spaced for purposes of mine development. 

However, trenches were specifically selected and dug for this economic analysis in 

order to verify projected outcrop localities from coal occurrences in boreholes.

Results from the prefeasibility study indicate that a small surface mine with about 

a 20 year life could be developed in the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, 

specifically at the Dzoragukh site. The mining business organization that is interested 

in developing this site will need to conduct the necessary development drilling and 

other other development works (trenching, coal quality analyses, surveying, etc.) to 

establish a final feasibility study for the mine.

The small mine suggested is a typical surface outcrop stripping, contour mining 

operation. In addition, subsequent auger mining is strongly recommended because the 

recovery of these low cost mining reserves will help to ensure that the operation is a 

viable, economic enterprise.

There is an immediate market for this coal according to Lori Mars officials - for 

use in an acetylene manufacturing facility, it is also believed that this coal could be

59
sold once it is known that coal exists for sale. However, it is recommended that before 

proceeding with the coal mining development project, that the interested business 

assess the coal market in a more formal manner.

For the economic analysis of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, coal 

reserves were calculated for an area near Dzoragukh approximately 4 km from 

Dzoragukh westward. Overburden along this strip was also calculated in order to give 

an economic limit to the strip mining with a reasonable overburden to coal ratio (usually 

10:1 in this study). The coal reserve calculations were broken down into minable 

reserves and recoverable reserves. Auger reserves were also calculated, but 

separately. However, it is again emphasized that auger mining is a low cost addition to 

the strip mining for obtaining additional coal.

The reserve and overburden calculations, description of the type of mine, mine 

production objective, and all details of this proposed mine - including coal sales and 

storage facility, the mining sequence, mining procedure, capital required, preproduction expenses, equipment and asset list, personnel required and annual payroll, 

a cost per annual ton of production, and a proposed sales price (with a 25 percent 

profit before taxes) can be found in the following report, which is contained in the 

Appendices:

Huber, Douglas W. and Pierce, Brenda S., in review, Potential Minabiiity 

and Economic Viability of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, 

north-central Armenia: A Prefeasibility Study, U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin, 46 p.

60
It is noted and emphasized that environmental and safety concerns played an 

important role in this prefeasibility study. There are guidelines and considerations for: 

top soil removal, storage, maintenance, and return; water quality and quantity control 

with drainage plans and water retention ponds for maintenance at pre-mining levels; 

minimization of erosion and environmental degradation with water control facilities and 

care of the top soil and spoil piles; and mandatory surface reclamation. Consideration 

is also given to the improvement of agricultural land after mining. With land owner 

agreement, current pasture land or currently nonusable land can be easily turned into 

crop land during reclamation activities. Reduced angle of slopes and better drainage 

distribution over the mined-reclaimed lands will not only improve crop acreage, but crop 

and pasture yield as well. In addition, employee training should be mandatory should a 

mine be developed, not only to take care of environmental concerns, but to ensure the 

safety of both workers and local citizens.

In addition, a comparison, on an energy content basis, is made of this coal's 

estimated cost price to that of natural gas in Armenia. For the comparison purposes, 

prices for natural gas were taken from the Burns and Roe, Inc. feasibility study of a 

proposed 50 MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustor and the cost of natural gas 

for home heating in Yerevan. The comparison can be found at the end of this section.

This prefeasibility study has been translated, in its entirety, into Russian and 

copies given to Lori Mars officials, Ministry of Environment officials, Ministry of Energy 

officials, and the Ministry of Environment's Gugark Expedition.

To synopsize the figures found in the report cited above (for details please see

61
the full report), the following is offered: 

Initial Investment:

Following an investment of US $85,000 over a 12 month period in mine 

development drilling, and other activities, a decision must be taken 

regarding further investment in an on-going mining operation. If the new 

data support the opening of the surface mine, the $85,000 development 

cost is amortized over the first ten years of mine production. If the new 

data do not support the opening of the mine, the $85,000 is considered as 

a business development expense which may be written off against profits 

from other operations for income or other tax purposes, or simply as a 

business loss.

Total Capital Required:

The equipment costs will reach a total of $900,500 which will be 

amortized over a 7 year period to establish estimated coal mining costs. 

Estimated working capital costs are $300,000 which are to be borrowed.

Surface Mining Reserves:

Approximately 840,200 metric tonnes of surface minable coal reserves at 

9.3 cubic meters of overburden per metric tonne of minable coal is 

indicated. Recovery of the minable coaf at 85 percent will yield 714,000 

recoverable metric tonnes of marketable as-mined coal.

Auger Mining Reserves:

Auger mining reserves of 576,000 metric tonnes are indicated. 

Recoverable auger mining reserves of 202,000 metric tonnes (at 35 

percent recovery) can be expected. Auger mining production will vary 

according to what hole size is being used, but in either case, it is a very 

profitable addition to the mining operation.

Cost and Sales Price:

A cost price range of $16.03 to $20.43 per tonne at the coal sales yard is 

estimated. Sale or market price for such coal is suggested to range from

62
$20.04 to $25.54 per tonne at the coal sales yard. The cost and prices 

stated depend upon whether the production level is 42,000 or 30,000 

metric tonnes per year and if coal is produced by use of low cost auger 

mining. The sales prices are also dependent upon the as-mined quality 

and market demand.

Comparison of Projected Energy Prices:

To match the $8.81/Gcal price for natural gas fueling a proposed 50 MW 

(electricity generating) CFB plant, the subject coal, at 4,673 kcal/kg 

(8,412 Btu/lb) (as-received basis), could be sold for as high as 

$40.67/tonne on an energy-content basis.

A comparison to home heating natural gas in Yerevan, at 0.9 cents/m3, 

indicates that the subject coal could be sold for as high as $51.32/tonne 

on an energy-content basis. It is pointed out that the above energy 

comparisons are on an energy basis, and do not include coal 

transportation or coal and ash handling costs.

63
X. OTHER ACTIVITIES 

The USGS co-sponsored the First International Energy Conference in Armenia

hosted by the Armenian Chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers, July 1998. 

USGS attended this meeting, presented an invited talk, and submitted a paper for the 

proceedings volume on the Coal Resources of Armenia. USGS also arranged for all of 

the Ministry of Environment honoraria members to attend this meeting.

The USGS helped the Ministry of Environment with their exhibit for the 

International Expo £ 98 meeting, held in Lisbon, Portugal (September 1998). In 

particular, the USGS edited, corrected, digitized, and plotted the Geologic and 

Structural Map of Armenia that was an integral part of the Republic of Armenia's 

exhibition.

The USGS gave an invited presentation at the Environmental Protection 

Workshop organized and hosted by the Environmental Protection Advocacy Center, in 

the spring of 1998. USGS spoke about the environmental laws in the U.S. connected 

with coal exploration, mining, transportation, and use, as well as giving an overview of 

coal in Armenia and it's general uses.

The USGS arranged for the Ministry honoraria employees to tour a new, private 

power plant in Yerevan. Although it was a hydropower plant, the general theory of 

power generation is the same for coal.

64
USGS participated in and spoke at a conference to encourage private 

investment in the Armenian power sector and/or natural resources in the fall of 1998. 

This meeting was hosted by USAID and the RA Ministry of Energy.

USGS partipated in and spoke at a conference to encourage private investment 

in Armenia held in Los Angeles California during the summer of 1996.

65
XI. USES FOR ARMENIA'S COAL RESOURCES

Coal has historically been used in Armenia in a copper smelter, in district 

heating facilities, for home heating, for small industry, for heating greenhouses, and in 

the making of briquettes. All of these historical uses are still potential uses.

The USGS talked to individuals in Gyumri (the second largest city in Armenia) 

and visited a heating facility in the home for the elderly and disabled. We were told 

that this heating facility is representative of most of the ones in Gyumri. This particular 

facility, as many in Gyumri and other cities, has not had fuel to heat the facility since 

1991. There are many schools, hospitals, orphanages, neighborhood facilities that 

could make use of coal in the heating facilities. This is especially the case in Gyumri, 

where earthquake damage is still quite severe. One estimate from Mr. Ararat 

Gomtsian, former Shirak Marspet (mayor), indicated that it would only take 9200 metric 

tonnes of coal to meet ail of the humanitarian heating needs for one winter: schools, 

hospitals, families with orphans placed with them, families with invalids, and homes for 

orphans, elderly, or disabled in Gyumri. The relief centers, such as hospitals, built right 

after the earthquake cannot use coal to heat them. However, all of the older facilities 

can use coal without any retrofitting to the facilities.

Many of the small and medium sized heating facilities throughout Armenia can 

use coal and have done so in the past. Coal can be used in many of the heating 

facilities throughout Armenia without any retrofitting or repair to the facilities. Many of 

these facilities were originally designed to be able to use gas, coal, or mazut. 

Discussions with the Chief of District Heating of the Ministry of Public Facilities (or

66
Public Works) in Yerevan indicated that should enough coal be found for a minimum 

supply and should the price be competitive with gas or mazut, they would be happy to 

use coal in these facilities. Although the price comparisons between coal and natural 

gas found earlier in this discussion did not take into account transporation and ash 

handling costs, they were on an energy equivalent basis, so there is reason to believe 

that coal could indeed be used competitively in the district heating facilities throughout 

Armenia.

In addition to these uses, there is an immediate market for the AntaramutKurtan-Dzoragukh coal in Vanadzor, according to Mars (regional) officials. Mars 

officials would like to use the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal in the chemical plant in 

Vanadzor. The chemical plant contains an acetylene manufacturing facility, which 

converts carbide using heat and water into acetylene. They are looking for coal to use 

as a raw material in the manufacture of carbide. This chemical plant uses coal at a rate 

of 1,000 metric tonnes per 10,000 tonnes of acetylene. A supply of 1,000 metric tonnes 

of coal per month would yield 120,000 tonnes of acetylene per year in this plant. 

Currently no acetylene is being manufactured because there is no affordable coal 

source.

The other potential use for Armenia's coal resources, of course, is in power 

plants. Using the Bums and Roe. inc. report on the "New Circulating Fluidized Bed 

Coal Fired Unit Final Report" and the specifications and parameters listed in that report

67
for such things as necessary calorific value, turbine and generator and other 

specifications, we offer the following information.

For a 35-year 50 MW CFB plant, operating at maximum capacity, for the 337 

days per year that the report says the plant will operate, a maximum coal tonnage will 

reach 297,000 metric tonnes per year. On a practical basis, however, this may only be 

250,000 metric tonnes per year. The reserves required for 35 years are approximately 

8.75 to 9 million metric tonnes of recoverable coal (coal to be delivered) which means 

approximately 11 million metric tonnes of minable tonnes, at 80 percent recovery for 

strip mining.

A 25 MW power plant would take approximately half of the tonnage listed above. 

Therefore, if 125,000 metric tonnes per year is needed, this equates to approximately 

5.5 million metric tonnes of surface minable coal (at 80 percent recoverable reserves) 

needed for a 35-year life 25 MW power plant.

Not enough is known about the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field to know 

exactly how many of the resource tonnes present in the coal deposit are available for 

mining. This work still needs to be done. However, the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh 

coal field may very well be able to fuel a 25 MW power plant.

The resources in the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, together with the 

resources in the Shamut coal field, may very well be able to fire a 50 MW power plant. 

The plant could be located between the two coal fields, as they are only approximately 

40 km apart. Exploratory resource drilling needs to be conducted in the Shamut coal 

field to prove out the resource, but as mentioned above, based on detailed geologic

68
mapping, there are probably more resources in the Shamut coal field than thought 

previously.

69
XII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

An economic analysis of the entire Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field 

needs to be done. This is needed in order to determine exactly how many of the 

resource tonnes present are available for mining. If this work is to be done, a few more 

boreholes piaced along the southern edge of the field would benefit the resource, and 

resultant reserve, estimates as well.

Exploratory drilling of the Shamut coal field is needed. Shamut may prove to be 

a large deposit, but exploratory drilling is needed to obtain coal core for analyses, true 

thickness measurements, and a better understanding of the coal field. The coalbearing horizon definitely extends beyond the areas of previous investigations and 

previous coal resource calculations. Therefore, more resources than previously 

calculated may exist at Shamut.

Exploratory drilling of the Ijevan coal field is needed. Much work has been done 

on the central part of the Ijevan coal field. However, no exploratory drilling has been 

conducted outside this small area. Exploratory drilling is needed in this very 

structurally complex coal field to prove out the lateral extent of the coal, determine the 

overall coal quality, and determine the exact nature of the resources.

Exploratory drilling of the Dilijan oil shale deposit may be needed. This deposit 

may prove to be a huge reserve of oil shale. Samples from the Dilijan oil shale field 

analyzed during the preliminary USGS study indicate that they are indeed low grade oil 

shales. However, this is also a burnable resource, albeit much higher in ash yield and

70
lower in calorific value than the coal fields listed above. However, in order to 

understand the full extent of Armenia's hard fuel resources, exploration of the Dilijan 

field should also be undertaken.

Project Bibliography

Brownfield, Michael E., Martirosyan, Artur, Pierce, Brenda S., and Johnson, Edward A., 

in review, Geology and Coal Quality of the Jermanis Coal Field, Central 

Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

Datlegge, Todd A., Martirosyan, Artur, Maldonado, Florian, and Pierce, Brenda S., in 

review, Stratigraphy and Geologic Map of Tertiary Coal-Bearing Deposits, Shirak 

Region, Northwestern Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

Huber, Douglas W. and Pierce, Brenda S., in review, Potential minability and economic 

viability of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh coal field, north-central Armenia: A 

Prefeasibility Study: U.S. Geology Survey Bulletin, 46 p.

Johnson, Edward A., Martirosyan, Artur, Pierce, Brenda S., and Brownfield, Michael E., 

in review, Geology of the Nor Arevik Coal Area, Megri Region, Southern 

Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

Maldonado, F., Warwick, P.O., Pierce, B.S., Thomas, J-C., Tutunjian, M., and

Chubarian, G., 1996, Geologic-tectonic map and structural domains of Armenia: 

Geological Society of American Abstracts with Program, vol. 28, no. 7, p. A-443.

Maldonado, Florian, Martirossian, Artur, Harutunian, Samvell, and Malkhasian,

Gourgen, 1998, Reconnaissance map of the Antaramut-Dzoragukh area, northcentral Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-739.

Maldonado, Florian, Martirossian, Artur, Harutunian, Samvell, Malkhasian, Gourgen, 

and Pierce, Brenda S., 1998, Geologic road log from Vanadzor to the coal 

deposits of Antaramut, Antaramut to Dzoragyukh, and Dzoragyukh to Vaagni, 

north-central Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-721.

Pierce, Brenda S., Warwick, Peter D., and Landis, Edwin R., 1994, Assessment of the

71
solid fuel resource potential of Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 94-149, 88 p.

Pierce, Brenda S., Warwick, Peter D., and Landis, Edwin R., 1994, The coal resource 

potential of Armenia: 2nd National Energy Strategy Conference Meeting 

Proceedings, May 1994, Yerevan, Armenia.

Pierce, Brenda S., Amazaspian, Hamlet, and Tewalt, Susan J., 1996, Comparison of 

coal resource methodology of the Republic of Armenia (former USSR) and the 

U.S. Geological Survey: Pittsburgh Coal Conference Proceedings Volume, vol. 1 

"Coal - Energy and the Environment," p. 168-171.

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirossian, Artur, Amazaspian, Hamlet, and Kochinian, Gohar,

1997, The Coal Resources of Armenia: International Pittsburgh Coal Conference 

and Workshop Proceedings Volume, Taiyuan China, September 1997, 5 pg.

Pierce, Brenda S., 1998, Coal in Armenia, EPAC (Environmental Public Advocacy 

Center) Newsletter, published in Armenian, 3 p.

Pierce, Brenda S. and Martirossian, Artur, 1998, Coal Use in Armenia: Geological 

Society of America, Abstracts with Program, October 1998. Invited for 

Symposium Session "Environmental Quality vs Economic Development: The 

Role of Coal in Developing Nations."

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, Malkhasian, Gourgen, Harutunian, Samvel, and 

Harutunian, Grigory, in preparation, Coal Geology and Coal Quality of the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, North-Central Armenia: submitted to 

International Journal of Coal Geology.

Pierce, Brenda S., Harutunian, Grigory, Harutunian, Samvel, and Martirosyan, Artur, in 

preparation, Regional Geology of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, 

North-Central Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

Pierce, Brenda S., Harutunian, Grigory, Harutunian, Samvel, Martirosyan, Artur, and 

Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, Geological and Structural Map of the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, North-Central Armenia: U.S. 

Geological Survey l-Map.

Pierce, Brenda S., Harutunian, Samvel, Martirosyan, Artur, and Harutunian, Grigory, in 

review, Borehole and Thin Section Descriptions from Exploration Drilling of the 

Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, North-Central Armenia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-561, 140 p.

72
Pierce, Brenda S. and Grigorian, Grigor, 1999, A Brief Review of Borehole Geophysical 

Logging Activities in Armenia: Part I. Geophysical Logs from Coal Exploration 

Boreholes of the Antaramut-Kurtan-Dzoragukh Coal Field, north-central 

Armenia; Part II. Geophysical Logs from Non-Coal Exploration Boreholes; Part 

III. Archival Geophysical Logs from Various Exploration Boreholes throughout 

the Republic of Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-561, 140

PPierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, and Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, The

Shamut Coal Deposit, North-Central Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

2175,71 p.

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, and Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, The Jajur 

Coal Deposit, North-Western Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, and Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, The Nor 

Arevik Coal Deposit, Southern Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

Pierce, Brenda S., Martirosyan, Artur, and Malkhasian, Gourgen, in review, The 

Antaramut Coal Deposit, North-Central Armenia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin.

Pierce, Brenda S., Coal Exploration and Resource Assessment of Armenia, 1999, U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-567, 77 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Satellite Image Map of Armenia and Surrounding

Territory, 1:250,000 scale: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map, I-2665, 2 sheets.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Satellite Image Map of Armenia and Surrounding

Territory, 1:100,000 scale: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map, I-2678 A through E.

Warwick, P.O., Maldonado, F., Pierce, B.S., Tutunjian, M., Chubarian, G., and Brutian, 

H., 1996, A volcanogenic depositional model for a thick Jurassic coal-bearing 

interval, lesser Cacucasus, Armenia: Geological Society of American Abstract 

with Program, vol. 28, p. A-209.

Warwick, P.D., Maldonado, F., Tutunjian, Mels, Chubarian, Hrachik, and Brutian, Haik, 

in review, Geologic road log from Ijevan to Dilijan, northeastern Armenia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report.

73
References Cited

Aloyan, S.G. and Hakopian, L.G., 1995 [Report on the results of the Shamut coal 

deposit preliminary exploration of 1992-1995]: Republic of Armenia State 

Archives No. 5741, 114 p. (In Russian.)

Atabekian, M. Kh., Chubarian, H.A., and Mkrtchian, G.A., 1996 [Review of the materials 

on the geologic explorations carried out in the Jermanis hard coal field and 

technical and economical considerations on commercial mining]: Republic of 

Armenia State Archives No. 5817 general, 122 p. (In Russian.)

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., 1998, New Circulating Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Unit, 

Final Report; Armenia: Power Supply/Conservation Program: Contract Number 

CCN-OQ02-Q-09-3154-00, Heat and Power System Efficiency Improvements, 

Delivery Order No. 28, multi-chaptered.

Chubarian, H.A., Mkrtchian, S.G., and Brutian, V.A., 1983 [Report on the results of 

exploration-estimation (resource calculation) work on the Ijevan coal deposit 

1980-1981]: Republic of Armenia Archives No. 3955 general, 93 p. and 14 

Graphical Appendixes. (In Russian.)

Drobotova, A.G. and Saponjian, Z.A., 1996 [Megri party report on the exploration and 

resource estimate results on the Nor Arevik deposit of brown coal and 

carbonaceous shale in the Megri region, Republic of Armenia, 1993-1996]: 

Republic of Armenia State Archives No. 5825 general, 178 p. (In Russian.)

Georgadze, G.G. 1956 [Field investigations (Antaramut) of geologic revision

examination crew from "Kavkazugleogeologia" Trust]: Republic of Armenia 

State Archives No. 203, 4 volumes. (In Russian.)

Kacharava, V.E., 1953 [Report on the results of exploration of the Shamut coal and 

carbonaceous shale deposit in Alaverdi Region, Armenian SSR]: Republic of 

Armenia State Archives No. 08, 428 p. (In Russian.)

Keshabian, V.R., Baghdasarian, A.A., and Arekelian, S.S., 1997 [Report on the results 

of geologic exploration and estimation carried out from 1993 to 1997 on the 

Antaramut coal deposit in the Lori Mars of the Republic of Armenia]: Republic of 

Armenia State Archives No. 5857, 58 p. (In Russian.)

Nazarian, A.N., 1941 [Jermanis hard coal deposit]: Republic of Armenia State Archives 

No. 1819, 104 p. (In Russian.)

Talanian, KG. and Bogdanova, E.P., 1956 [Report on geologic-exploration works on

74
the Dilijan carbonaceous shale and Antaramut coal deposits for 1954]: Republic 

of Armenia State Archives No. 0292, 185 p. (In Russian.)

Tarayan, S.A., 1942 [Nor Arevik deposit of coal and combustible shales - Prospecting 

and exploration works in the Megri region of Arm SSR during 1941]: Republic of 

Armenia State Archives Report No. 2048 general, 37 p. (In Russian.)

Tarayan, S.A., 1942 [Recalculation of resources of Jajur coal deposit on 1 December 

1942]: Republic of Armenia State Archives No. 2160, 40 p. (In Russian.)

Vardanian, K.H. and Elbakian, O.K., 1996 [Report on the results of geological 

exploration of the Jajur brown coal deposit from 1992-1995 (with resource 

calculations as of January 1, 1996)]: Republic of Armenia State Archives Report 

No. 5853 general, 93 p. (In Armenian.)

75
Figure 2. Topographic and locality map of the Antaramut-KurtanDzoragukh coal field, in north-central Armenia. Each grid square is 1 sq km 

and the contour interval is 5 m. Boxes of resource areas are explained in the text.

DH-l

o

Explanation

Borehole locality

Thin section sample locality

Outcrop

Roads

Village

Figure 1. Location of coal, carbonaceous shale, and oil shale deposits in Armenia.

60 km

EXPLANATION

DEPOSITS

, tataramut-Kuitan-Dzoragukh 

Jjeyan

jhamut 

>iljjaii LUS 

lavan

<§> CAPITAL 

o TOWN